Have you ever tried to use a spitz wedge?
I had to german translate spitz. Spitz is pointed, right? I've not tried a FEKO run of a pointed wedge, no. I would expect it behave like this image though.
Did TheTraveller ever say for sure what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge and whether Shawyer is using standard terminology for the mode shape?
I think TheTraveller said TE013 for the c-band wedge geometry.
fc=c/(2a) where a is the longer dimension of the small end of the wedge.
So a is Dt? Or should a be Wt? Dt = Wb and Db in Shawyer's wedges.
It is Dt for TE01 and it is Wt for TE10, according to standard terminology.
The question remains as to what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge. I don't know whether he is using TE01 instead of TE10 or another mode. Did TheTraveller ever say for sure what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge and whether Shawyer is using standard terminology for the mode shape?
X-Ray had an excellent post (now deleted ?)
It seems to me that Shawyer MUST be using TE10 according to standard terminology, thus cutoff is defined by Wt because it is the Wt dimension that is being tapered.
Did TheTraveller ever say for sure what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge and whether Shawyer is using standard terminology for the mode shape?
I think TheTraveller said TE013 for the c-band wedge geometry.
Shawyer must be using TE103 mode according to standard terminology, because otherwise there is no tapering cutoff for TE013 according to standard terminology since he is keeping that dimension constant, therefore if one end is above cutoff so is the other end. (For TE013 in that wedge, if one end is OK for cutoff, the other is too).
fc=c/(2 Wt) for TE103 (the only thing being tapered is Wt, that is what matters !)
I think that TheTraveller meant "the mode that looks like TE013 for the frustum of a cone"
For a square cross section, with both sides being tapered, TE013=TE103
Did TheTraveller ever say for sure what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge and whether Shawyer is using standard terminology for the mode shape?
I think TheTraveller said TE013 for the c-band wedge geometry.
He is wrong according to standard terminology. Shawyer must be using TE103 mode, because otherwise there is no cutoff for TE013 according to standard terminology since he is keeping that dimension constant.
I think that TheTraveller meant "the mode that looks like TE013 for the cylinder"
This all goes back to a post X_Ray made tens of pages ago about "standard terminology" in the wedge geometry. That means what is TE013 for the frustums, should be TE103 in the wedge geometry using the standard terminology for rectangular waveguides.
Did TheTraveller ever say for sure what mode shape is Shawyer using for the wedge and whether Shawyer is using standard terminology for the mode shape?
I think TheTraveller said TE013 for the c-band wedge geometry.
He is wrong according to standard terminology. Shawyer must be using TE103 mode, because otherwise there is no cutoff for TE013 according to standard terminology since he is keeping that dimension constant.
I think that TheTraveller meant "the mode that looks like TE013 for the cylinder"
This all goes back to a post X_Ray made back tens of pages about "standard terminology" in the wedge geometry. That means what is TE013 for the frustums, should be TE103 using the standard terminology for rectangular waveguides.
Glad we got something accomplished today.
Now I'm going to have a beer
.../...
Also, the return to center (RTC) of the torsion wire is resolved. It was not thermal changes, it was a poor design for the top clamp. There was slight friction in a feed-through hole rather than a direct drop from the wire clamp. RTC is very stable, however, it is VERY slow...will need drag weights to "help it along" rather than a typical torsion spring labs use. Not a quick fix to install a return spring...weight will do just fine on the long beam assembly.
Trying (and failing) to visualize your design idea with "drag weights". When you say RTC is slow, is your setup already damped (no or not a lot of oscillations) and the RTC time is a long slow approach to equilibrium, or not already damped and RTC is long because of a long time for oscillations to dissipate (a lot of oscillations) ? Also are you talking of RTC relative to a clean perturbation mostly in torsion (the degree of freedom of interest when measuring thrust induced torque) or swings/tumbling around all axis ?
For an already damped torsion pendulum and considering only the main rotation along wire axis, for a given moment of inertia RTC time will be proportional to (mmh, square root of) mechanical sensitivity (angular deviation to torque ratio, that is inverse of stiffness). Shorter RTC time implies lower mechanical sensitivity, that is higher stiffness . Not saying this is necessarily bad since you have a high resolution LDS. But I can't see how adding weights can decrease RTC time in this specific case (already damped torsion pendulum and considering only the main rotation along wire axis).
Best I describe in a video. Spent time last night pondering dampening and rtc. Experimented with a variety of things. Oil dampening is too much drag both for initial impulse and return. Will remove vertical plates and have horizontal plate only. Drag weight idea worked but elevated sensitivity threshold. Solution was...unique...drag weights engage only at LDS maximums, +/- 10 mm. Think you'll like my solution. Will do a walkaround video soon.
Of course other will try to reverse engineer what I have developed and they are welcome to try but it will cost them $50k per thruster.
What do we get for $50,000? Just the frustum? Or will you include the RF source, test rig, and other RF test equipment?
Complete ready to go self contained 0.1N S band thruster including all support systems such as 250Wrf, smart freq tracker & install / operational manual. Input power can be stepped up in 250W increments to 2.5kW but at additional cost. Can be run in dumb mode by just switching On & Off external power or controlled by multi access method control port.
Clients can visit & do their own tests.
When this goes commercial, later this year, may talk to Chris about advertising on NSF.
...Most of these packages do not have standard facility to plot the energy density, but as Monomorphic has shown one can visualize the energy density peak from the E and B fields. If one has the small diameter below the cutoff for an open waveguide, there maybe a region close to the small end without a significant intensity of the fields, which is not as good as having the energy density peak as close as possible to the small end.
Violate Roger's 0.82 rule and there will be no thrust. Don't need any software package to tell you that as none can.
Can someone better explain this 0.82 rule? 0.82 of what value?
Frustum excitation lowest wavelength in TE013 = small end dia in meters x 0.82.
Has been discussed many times.
Non-commercial guys...just sayin'
When the time comes, will talk to Chris about placing an advertisement on NSF.
Note that I am not dismissing any results you have seen, but I do not have enough information on your experiment, so I can't use it as the basis for any conclusions.
I have decided to share some of my experimental findings. As well have decided to push ahead with a Doc Brown type rotary test rig that he has shown should work well with my current 8mN of thrust.
Hi Guys,
Before my amp died some of the tests I did indicated the best thrust freq was not the same as the best rtn loss freq. I believe this is due to frustum manufacturing errors introducing phase distortion in the multiple reflected travelling waves being compensated by a slightly off freq excitation such that the say negative phase distortions introduced by the freq are compensated by positive phase distortions caused by the manufacturing defects resulting in the min overall phase distortions over the life of the travelling wave & thus generating a higher thrust than operating at best rtn loss freq.
I also found the thrust bandwidth was very much narrower than the rtn loss bandwidth.
This info is preliminary & needs to be confirmed by a lot more tests when I get my amp back.
Paul March, do you have the ability to tune your excition freq as against thrust generated in real time? If not might be worth a thought as to how to do this to both tune freq for max thrust as well as to map the thrust versus freq bandwidth as against rtn loss versus freq bandwidth. I'm sure there is gold to mine in that data.
...Most of these packages do not have standard facility to plot the energy density, but as Monomorphic has shown one can visualize the energy density peak from the E and B fields. If one has the small diameter below the cutoff for an open waveguide, there maybe a region close to the small end without a significant intensity of the fields, which is not as good as having the energy density peak as close as possible to the small end.
Violate Roger's 0.82 rule and there will be no thrust. Don't need any software package to tell you that as none can.
Can someone better explain this 0.82 rule? 0.82 of what value?
Frustum excitation lowest wavelength in TE013 = small end dia in meters x 0.82.
Has been discussed many times.
TE013 and approximately 0.82 only applies to a cavity with circular cross-section.
Using
international-standard mode shape terminology,
the equivalent mode shape must be TE103 for the wedge geometry with rectangular cross-section, (see messages above), because Shawyer's cutoff rule applies to the narrower rectangular side, the only side being tapered. For the rectangular cross section,
the factor is exactly 2 instead of approximately 0.82.
fc=c/(2 Wt) for TE103
Using standard mode shape terminology, the mode shape must be TE103 for the wedge geometry with rectangular cross-section, (see messages above), because Shawyer's cutoff rule applies to the narrower rectangular side, the only side being tapered. For the rectangular cross section, the factor is exactly 2 instead of approximately 0.82.
The 0.82 rule is only for the small end of a tapered circular frustum excited in TE013 mode.
Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
You really seem to engage confusion with delight, which to me seems to be very strange acttivity? What is the point you are trying to make cause I'm confused where you are going?
One wonders whether Shawyer himself ever analyzed the EM Drive problem, because what he proposes completely ignores the boundary conditions of the problem, and fails to understand that all standing waves are composed of travelling waves.
Hi all,
Nice that Dr. Rodal confirms Roger.
Note Dr. Rodal's travelling waves only reflect off the end plates as Roger claims travelling waves do.
You might need to click on the lower image to see the travelling wave animation.
Phil
Using standard mode shape terminology, the mode shape must be TE103 for the wedge geometry with rectangular cross-section, (see messages above), because Shawyer's cutoff rule applies to the narrower rectangular side, the only side being tapered. For the rectangular cross section, the factor is exactly 2 instead of approximately 0.82.
The 0.82 rule is only for the small end of a tapered circular frustum excited in TE013 mode.
Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
You really seem to engage confusion with delight, which to me seems to be very strange acttivity? What is the point you are trying to make cause I'm confused where you are going?
To clear up your confusion:
I made a positive statement: that TE013 and
approximately 0.82 only applies to a cavity with circular cross-section. It applies to Shawyer's
older EM Drives.
This is relevant, because the cavity with a circular cross-section is the
older Shawyer design that Shawyer
used for his older tests like the Demonstrator and the Flight Thruster.
The
newer EM Drive design that Shawyer showed in the BBC Greenglow program has a rectangular cross section, this is called the "wedge" in exchanges with Monomorphic.
Monomorphic is testing Shawyer's
newer wedge design, and thus it is important to point out that
TE013 and approximately 0.82 only applies to Shawyer's older design.For the newer Shawyer EM Drive, shown in BBC project greenglow, that Monomorphic is testing, the equivalent mode shape is TE103 and the factor is exactly 2 instead of approximately 0.82.
Using standard mode shape terminology, the mode shape must be TE103 for the wedge geometry with rectangular cross-section, (see messages above), because Shawyer's cutoff rule applies to the narrower rectangular side, the only side being tapered. For the rectangular cross section, the factor is exactly 2 instead of approximately 0.82.
The 0.82 rule is only for the small end of a tapered circular frustum excited in TE013 mode.
Don't understand why you suggest it is associated with wedge frustum as neither Roger nor I ever suggested such an association.
You really seem to engage confusion with delight, which to me seems to be very strange acttivity? What is the point you are trying to make cause I'm confused where you are going?
To clear up your confusion:
I made a positive statement: that TE013 and approximately 0.82 only applies to a cavity with circular cross-section.
This is relevant, because the cavity with a circular cross-section is the older Shawyer design that he used for his older tests like the Demonstrator.
The newer EM Drive design that Shawyer showed in the BBC Greenglow program has a rectangular cross section, this is called the "wedge" in exchanges with Monomorphic.
Monomorphic is testing Shawyer's newer wedge design, and thus it is important to point out that TE013 and approximately 0.82 only applies to Shawyer's older design.
Newer? Sorry not correct.
That wedge frustum was pre the circular Flight Thruster, around 2008.
Roger can't show the final Flight Thruster in 3 dimensions as I believe there are details of the coupler tuning that are not for public disclosure. Flight Thruster photos only show the back side.
One wonders whether Shawyer himself ever analyzed the EM Drive problem, because what he proposes completely ignores the boundary conditions of the problem, and fails to understand that all standing waves are composed of travelling waves.
Hi all,
Nice that Dr. Rodal confirms Roger.
Note Dr. Rodal's travelling waves only reflect off the end plates as Roger claims travelling waves do.
You might need to click on the lower image to see the travelling wave animation.
Phil
Single travelling waves cannot satisfy the boundary conditions for a metal surface. See this:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1529920#msg1529920. A standing wave is necessary to satisfy the boundary conditions at a metal surface. A standing wave is composed of
two-counterpropagating travelling waves going in opposite directions.Any other type of wave (that is not a standing wave, for example: decaying travelling waves like evanescent waves, etc.) must decay exponentially by the time it gets to the metal surface. So only the standing wave is related to stresses at the surfaces.
The E and B field are out of phase in a standing wave, in order to satisfy the boundary condition at a metal surface. A standing wave makes it possible to insert a conductor (a conductive wall perpendicular to the standing wave) at any of the nodes where the tangential electric field is zero without changing the structure of the electric field!
Of course other will try to reverse engineer what I have developed and they are welcome to try but it will cost them $50k per thruster.
What do we get for $50,000? Just the frustum? Or will you include the RF source, test rig, and other RF test equipment?
Complete ready to go self contained 0.1N S band thruster including all support systems such as 250Wrf, smart freq tracker & install / operational manual. Input power can be stepped up in 250W increments to 2.5kW but at additional cost. Can be run in dumb mode by just switching On & Off external power or controlled by multi access method control port.
Clients can visit & do their own tests.
When this goes commercial, later this year, may talk to Chris about advertising on NSF.
Concerning your announcement of going commercial later this year, does one need a licensing arrangement with Shaywer to go commercial: to advertise selling units?
Concerning your announcement of going commercial later this year, do you need a licensing arrangement with Shaywer to go commercial: to advertise selling units?
We are in discussion.
I do not seek to be a SPR licensee as that involves a lot of Red tape.
What Roger has shared with me is available to anyone who reads and listens to everthing that he has disclosed and can connect the dots that info creates.
I do have his permission to use "Shawyer Effect Propulsion".
